He makes great points. We are constantly evolving - and what was acceptable then isn't acceptable now, and it's a good thing we are changing for the better.

I can laugh at, and love, the movie Blazing Saddles, while realizing that it can't be made today. And I can understand that it's okay we shouldn't do it again. We have EVOLVED past that.

Except for the #MAGA people. They WANT to go back to the days when black people had no rights, and white males ruled all aspects of life, and you could abuse minorities and women and no one would do anything.

Not me. Those viewpoints were wrong, and many of us were part of that. Most of us know it was wrong, and we need to move forward. It's those that pine for those days and are nostalgic for the racism and sexism and want to go back to it.

I can laugh at, and love, the movie Blazing Saddles, while realizing that it can't be made today.

Yeah, but you have to consider the filmmaker. Mel Brooks was - who he was. The guy who made a musical dance number out of the Spanish Inquisition. I mean, his whole life he pushed the boundaries of taste in comedy. Now his son helps the military plan for zombie apocalypses. All in the family.

That film is interesting. Certainly takes on anti-Black racism, complete with "the Sheriff is a-n"? "What'd he say?" "The Sheriff is a near".

Then, Mel rides up on a horse, dressed like an Indian chief, looks at the sheriff, and says "Hunh. Schvartzes. Dey Darker den us". And of course, Lilly von Schtup. Yeah, Mel never had much of a thing for being politically correct.

The thing about Apu in the Simpsons is he is a stereotype. Well, of course he is. BTW, which character on that show isn't? Everything on the Simpsons is stuck in time. The show was just renewed to go forward to its 30th season in 2019. It's been on close to 30 years, but Bart and Lisa haven't graduated high school, and Maggie is still an infant. Apu is stuck being a stereotype ... but let's be honest. So is Ned Flanders, even if his caricature of goodly Christians is one liberals snicker at.

_________________-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.Malaclypse the Younger

Yeah, but you have to consider the filmmaker. Mel Brooks was - who he was. The guy who made a musical dance number out of the Spanish Inquisition. I mean, his whole life he pushed the boundaries of taste in comedy. Now his son helps the military plan for zombie apocalypses. All in the family.

That film is interesting. Certainly takes on anti-Black racism, complete with "the Sheriff is a-n"? "What'd he say?" "The Sheriff is a near".

Then, Mel rides up on a horse, dressed like an Indian chief, looks at the sheriff, and says "Hunh. Schvartzes. Dey Darker den us". And of course, Lilly von Schtup. Yeah, Mel never had much of a thing for being politically correct.

The thing about Apu in the Simpsons is he is a stereotype. Well, of course he is. BTW, which character on that show isn't? Everything on the Simpsons is stuck in time. The show was just renewed to go forward to its 30th season in 2019. It's been on close to 30 years, but Bart and Lisa haven't graduated high school, and Maggie is still an infant. Apu is stuck being a stereotype ... but let's be honest. So is Ned Flanders, even if his caricature of goodly Christians is one liberals snicker at.

Agreed. Brooks was, and is, a genius. But even his comedy has evolved. Brooks never used his comedy to degrade minorities, and that's why it's funny even today, even if he couldn't make that movie today.

I thought the Hugh Wilson-directed film "Rustlers Rhapsody" was superior to "Blazing Saddles." Brooks may be a genius but an inconsistent one. 'Spring Time for Hitler' was a great bit, but the 'eating beans and farting uncontrollably' scene in "Blazing Saddles" was just corny, bad slapstick.

_________________"When the rich take money from the poor it's called business, when poor people resist it's called violence." –Mark Twain

the idea that in America you can be anything you want is a good one and not limited to starting out poor and becoming self sufficient or wealthy but also includes starting out ignorant or wrong about things, that one can change and grow and evolve and end up better than they were before. requires more democracy than oppression though, more love than hate, more forgiveness than putative punishment.

the idea that in America you can be anything you want is a good one and not limited to starting out poor and becoming self sufficient or wealthy but also includes starting out ignorant or wrong about things, that one can change and grow and evolve and end up better than they were before. requires more democracy than oppression though, more love than hate, more forgiveness than putative punishment.

Yes, we have evolved. And the Republicans continue to always be on the wrong side of history.

Yes, we have evolved. And the Republicans continue to always be on the wrong side of history.

still is open to any individual who so chooses to work for it or seek it out. conditions also change and require updates and fixes so evolved today may not apply to tomorrow. in very recent history the standard on the democratic side was separate but equal regarding gay marriage. if you can forgive that maybe you can forgive someone else shortcoming.

still is open to any individual who so chooses to work for it or seek it out. conditions also change and require updates and fixes so evolved today may not apply to tomorrow. in very recent history the standard on the democratic side was separate but equal regarding gay marriage. if you can forgive that maybe you can forgive someone else shortcoming.

Unlike the right, the Dems got on the right side of history. The Republicans still haven't.

If we want to examine a different way of describing the ideological difference between liberals and conservatives ... of course, this is still a line instead of a Nolan plane ...

On this axis, of attitudes toward social change, the extreme liberals are radicals, and the extreme conservatives are reactionaries. Both reactionaries and radicals favor violence as a tool to either create, or reverse, social change. Liberals prefer reformism. Conservatives maintenance of the status quo.

However, given historical trajectories, the status quo usually includes inequality and hierarchy.

This is also why I say, since they prefer social progress, at least in this country, "liberals" more or less are the same thing as "progressives".

_________________-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.Malaclypse the Younger

Unlike the right, the Dems got on the right side of history. The Republicans still haven't.

on some things not everything. how much time and attention do democratic debates give to homelessness and poverty? how evolved are they on the minimum wage or staffing levels and work schedules, work hours of working and poor people? there is much on the democratic side to cringe about when it comes to being evolved. if you cant see your own shortcomings how can you ever hope to correct them?

on some things not everything. how much time and attention do democratic debates give to homelessness and poverty? how evolved are they on the minimum wage or staffing levels and work schedules, work hours of working and poor people? there is much on the democratic side to cringe about when it comes to being evolved. if you cant see your own shortcomings how can you ever hope to correct them?

Dude, with Democrats there wouldn't even BE a minimum wage! Have you ever lobbied on the issue, talking to both Dem and Republicans to raise wages?

Generally speaking, liberal Democrats are more likely to deal with issues of labor (including scheduling and wages) than Republicans, who would prefer to leave them to the free market and what the employer/boss decides for his workers. They also are more likely to be on board with War on Poverty social programs, which include public and low-cost housing for homeless people.

BTW, we can talk about politicians and their stances from a few years ago, but looking at now (or close to now), a 2016 Pew survey shows 60% of Republicans (and 71% of conservatives) oppose gay marriage, whereas only 24% of Democrats do.

From another site: -- looking at the party's 2016 platforms, Minimum wageDemocrats want to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it with inflation.Republicans say minimum wage is “an issue that should be handled on the state and local level.”

IOW, the Republicans do not want the minimum wage at all set at the federal level, only at the state level. Trump, BTW, is also against the federal minimum wage.

The point I'm making is while not all Democrats are liberal, nor is the Democratic party perfect, it really just seems silly (as some do) to claim "both parties are the same" or that even on all the issues mentioned, the Democrats are not obviously better than Republicans, if again, not perfect.

Again, the perfect is best, but sometimes the better is good.

_________________-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.Malaclypse the Younger

Last edited by ProfessorX on Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dude, with Democrats there wouldn't even BE a minimum wage! Have you ever lobbied on the issue, talking to both Dem and Republicans to raise wages?

I have.

not a lobbyist so no. but like I said how much time and attention do democratic debates give to homelessness and poverty? how evolved are they on the minimum wage or staffing levels and work schedules, work hours of working and poor people?

not a lobbyist so no. but like I said how much time and attention do democratic debates give to homelessness and poverty? how evolved are they on the minimum wage or staffing levels and work schedules, work hours of working and poor people?

Neither am I. But I've been to my state capital, as well as to DC. Normal people can go talk to their reps, too.

They are FAR more evolved than Republicans. Without Dems, there wouldn't be any such thing as labor rights, or minimum wage, or hell, even welfare, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid!

Crack a history book and see how these things came about! And see what we'll return to if the Republicans have their way on the next Supreme Court Justice!

Neither am I. But I've been to my state capital, as well as to DC. Normal people can go talk to their reps, too.

They are FAR more evolved than Republicans. Without Dems, there wouldn't be any such thing as labor rights, or minimum wage, or hell, even welfare, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid!

Crack a history book and see how these things came about! And see what we'll return to if the Republicans have their way on the next Supreme Court Justice!

but like I said how much time and attention do democratic debates give to homelessness and poverty? how evolved are they on the minimum wage or staffing levels and work schedules, work hours of working and poor people?

Which party is more likely to say the work hours and schedules of workers is up to the boss/employer, and not the business of the federal government or labor regulations? (hint: not the Dems)Which party is more likely to say homelessness and poverty require federal housing programs etc. to address, and which party largely ignores them? (hint: Dems, Reps)Which party is pushing for increasing the federal minimum wage, and which one continues to say it should be left up to the states? (hint: Dems, Reps)Which party STILL has people refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay people - and which one ... doesn't? (hint: Reps, Dems)

_________________-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.Malaclypse the Younger

Which party is more likely to say the work hours and schedules of workers is up to the boss/employer, and not the business of the federal government or labor regulations?Which party is more likely to say homelessness and poverty require federal housing programs etc. to address, and which party largely ignores them? Which party is pushing for increasing the federal minimum wage, and which one continues to say it should be left up to the states? Which party STILL has people refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay people - and which one ... doesn't?

if you dont spend time debating these issues or offer up any solutions how can they be improved on? does it matter to suffering people who are wholly ignored and expelled from the political process that one party favors them a bit more?

if you dont spend time debating these issues or offer up any solutions how can they be improved on?

I have seen plenty of Democrats debate these issues at plenty of debates. I have also seen them offer solutions. In the case of the minimum wage, very specific ones, which I've mentioned twice in this thread.

You might be referring to the presidential debates. While I will agree with you I also did not like the way the presidential debates of 2016 ignored certain topics (including climate change), it isn't the parties themselves that set the agenda of what questions will be asked.

Quote:

does it matter to suffering people who are wholly ignored and expelled from the political process that one party favors them a bit more?

Again, on the issue of voter caging and suppression, there's one party fighting it, and one party supporting it.

Amid Trump’s Election Fraud Claims, Democrats Take Aim at GOP Voter Suppression—AgainIt's not the first time that Democrats have gone to court alleging that the Republican National Committee has made a practice of intimidating voters. In 1982, Democratic pressure resulted in Republicans agreeing to stop "ballot security" measures used to deter qualified people from voting.https://rewire.news/ablc/2016/11/02/ele ... ppression/

Dunno, Motor. The Republicans continue to argue for an agenda of voter caging, suppression, etc. (plus gerrymandering, whether glen wants to accepts its existence or not, I've shown its reality many times) and the Democrats want to make it easier for more people to vote. The Republicans basically struck down enforcement of parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Democrats have fought to restore it.

_________________-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.Malaclypse the Younger

Last edited by ProfessorX on Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Blazing Saddles could be done today, provided it were the Wayan Brothers making the film.

A lot of people are saying Blazing Saddles could not be made today. I don't think it has a basis in fact. Not only are movies being made which rise to the level of Blazing Saddles, they are going beyond.

A lot of people are saying Blazing Saddles could not be made today. I don't think it has a basis in fact. Not only are movies being made which rise to the level of Blazing Saddles, they are going beyond.

The Hateful Eight is a recent example.

I was going to bring up the example of Tarantino, and Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight. Blazing Saddles could definitely be made by any number of controversial whites, including Tarantino, and they'd make a mint. I'm ambivalent about Tarantino -- can't stand the person and like some of his movies -- but the fact that he makes these 70s homage films packed to gills with whites saying "nigger" is part of his success.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum